It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help Me Settle This Argument

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

And this is exactly my contention, it is minimalistic, it is simple and clean. This isn't a question about the merit of such art, it's strictly a question of technical sophistication. Is one simpler than the other? Yes or no.

The claim of this other guy was that this suggestion was absurd and stupid.

a reply to: Balans

Predicting someone's taste has nothing to do with this at all. What has that got to do with anything? Is taste an aspect of someone's character? And character here is more or less a synonym for personality.

Age, time spent or materials is beside the point. Is one more sophisticated than the other is the question. The actual finished product. The sophistication of the outcome. The difference between simple lines and monochrome colouring and the more advanced techniques involved in a painting like this:


(Right click and open in new tab for full resolution)

Which one uses more advanced techniques in the making? And which one is a more complex work of art?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Art is a soul trigger.. I like that. This argument started out with me defending being touched by writing that another member considered bad. I said even a simple line from a song can touch somebody's heart if the timing is right, it doesn't have to be world class poetry to touch someone was my contention. And from there the name dropping and pretentiousness of this other person took of. I won't pretend that I too didn't stoop low in this exchange, sh*t happens.
edit on 22-7-2016 by TheLaughingGod because: Added another reply.




posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I would suggest that there is a degree of difficulty involved in making that minimalist art that puts it in its own category.

I have more practical expertise with written stuff, so I'll talk about haiku. It seems so simple 5-7-5. Any idiot should be able to knock together three lines with the required syllable numbers, but to do it as well as a true master, there are bunch of things that have to be understood well by the writer including connotation, shades of meaning, etc. You have to wring every last drop out of your words and their choice has to be perfect. And you have to adhere to the form itself being a nature poem.

It's not nearly as easy as it seems.

So I'd suggest that the minimalist work is its own universe of expertise, just in a different way. And it's a mistake to try a direct comparison because European forms encourage complexity whereas the Asian forms seek to remove it, to distill the thing to its essence and perfect that.

And don't get me wrong, I get completely where you are going. Asian artists would completely fail if their mission was to paint like European painters, but it's not and never was. And I think it's mistake to try to judge them by those criteria.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I think the Japanese art is less technical but its beauty is in the simplistic, quiet expression of the artist.

I also think that taste and character ARE correlated.

If your home is adorned with LOTR art, well, that tells me you likely have a foot out of reality but are highly imaginative and see life in a good vs evil scenario.

If your home it adored with, say, ecclectic art, such as VanGough, you are a linear thinker, black is black and white is white, with little to no "shades of grey".

If your home is adorned with naturescape art, well, you are me. 😊 Someone who longs to rid themselves of whatever is confining and wanders mentally thru the naturesque art as though you've a backpack strapped on and your adventure has no limitations.

These are just my opinions, of course, and I am an old faht who longs for younger days and missed opportunities to have had many more youthful adventures decades ago.

One final thought: what does a home without ANY art say about the dweller?



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I agree.. Tao Te Ching.

Forget value judgment in this question, it's a simple question of sophistication and complexity.

Man.. I think I've repeated that at least 10 times in this thread already.

Look, I don't have a problem with Japanese art. I don't question and I haven't questioned the merit of such art, my only assertion is that Japanese art is stylistically simplistic - or minimalistic if you think simplistic sounds too negative. This is my only claim.

Good or bad, superior or inferior is completely beside the point.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: NewzNose

You might be me. My home is stuffed with books though. Do they count as art?



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Art is not necessarily about technicality, or faithfully recreating a photorealistic image, although it CAN be, given the right circumstances. Art is about expression. You can have paintings which show an awful lot of detail, to the point of being as good as looking through a window at the world outside, but unless there is more too it than graphics and markmaking talent, it might be that a far simpler image, with less detail, may have more actual art in it, than any 4K experiment in OCD does.

Skill is only relevant to an artist in so far as possessing it can allow an artist to express themselves more accurately. However, if a person only possesses skill, but has barely anything to actually say, it can render them nothing more than an over complicated Polaroid machine, impressive, but absent soul.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

I know this and I agree.. but this isn't what I said that was held up as being absurd and stupid. It was the claim that Japanese art is simplistic: minimalistic.

As I wrote above.. I have pointed this out numerous times already, probably in every post I've made in this thread. The relative merit of said art is beside the point.

This mural that was supposedly the height of technical skill really wasn't all that great though. The technical skill wasn't great, but neither was the finished product. It didn't come together as anything more than its individual components, in short there was nothing really special about it at all.

There are any number of wonderful Tibetan thangkas that are similarly simple in technique but much more interesting. I wouldn't hesitate to call them superior but that is my opinion.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

They're not 'simple lines'. It's not a curve that is drawn freehand off spec, it's an image that is visialised and drawn with great accuracy. You think it's poor because the face doesn't look right... right? To consistently draw a face in that style is only the tip of the iceberg.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Japanese can make art by raking sand.

Technique is more than just what images are rendered to canvas.

Technique include the materials, pigments, lacquers, how they interact and especially how they last.

Oil Paintings that have lasted centuries without cracking or fading are a lost art.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

They're not 'simple lines'. It's not a curve that is drawn freehand off spec, it's an image that is visialised and drawn with great accuracy. You think it's poor because the face doesn't look right... right? To consistently draw a face in that style is only the tip of the iceberg.

He didn't say anything about it being poor. Read what the man has said repeatedly.

Why is this such a hard question for everyone? PC run amok?



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: and14263

Simple lines is an accurate description of the style. Simple lines in contrast to styles that don't really use lines in the same fashion at all. No, I don't think it's poor. That is you reading into what I'm saying just like you're reading too much into the word simple. Simple lines does not imply easiness.

AND FOR GOD'S SAKE PEOPLE READ WHAT I HAVE ACTUALLY WRITTEN.

As I wrote above.. I have pointed this out numerous times already, probably in every post I've made in this thread. The relative merit of said art is beside the point.

I feel like I must repeat this once again. This is directly quoted from the OP:

This isn't to say that I think the art is bad, that is another question entirely.

I give up......



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I agree with your premise that the works are more technical in aspect (in my opinion)

Was a pretty simple question you opened with and I must say it was a bit amusing to watch people COMPLETELY ignore that and ramble on about the evocations of spirit and soul that art may reveal or their own personal tastes in art.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The taste is in your mouth and it's saying you'd rather have Kippers than sushi.

One thing is they are not the same style so comparing art to art is a personal thing... so you like Rembrandt more than the style you're comparing it too.

Such a thing is apples and oranges though, both are fruit but they can't be judged by the same taste because the comparison should be made in the same style.

An example of that in proper judgment of art would say who was the best impressionist painter, or surrealist... etc etc.

You can compare art not of the same style at all and of course anyone with a background in art or education in such are going to think you're an idiot and such comments are best left unsaid...

Like saying you hate red wine, well which red wine would that be... as there are many and well like the Cabernet what was grown around it as far as herbs, flowers etc. it's going to have a whole different bouquet that opens up season to season wholly different even from the same brand or even vintage and this can even occur bottle to bottle from storage etc.

So the better way to critique art is to find what you can appreciate about it, not compare and contrast like trying on shoes to see how they fit you. In such a way you'll develop an actual taste and appreciation and not just ramming your feet in without looking at the sizes first.
edit on 22-7-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp. clar



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Apparently you went ahead and ignored everything I've written in this thread. Both regarding taste and art.

Someone deserves a medal for this, it is quite an accomplishment to have this many people completely ignore what I've been saying. I'm sure this must be some kind of record.

*Sigh* ....



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Apparently you went ahead and ignored everything I've written in this thread. Both regarding taste and art.

Someone deserves a medal for this, it is quite an accomplishment to have this many people completely ignore what I've been saying. I'm sure this must be some kind of record.

*Sigh* ....

Don't let it get to you. I think a lot of us have authored a thread that went awry with misunderstandings. For what it's worth, a few of us understood, and see what you're getting at.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I read the OP, my eyes are too tired to read commentary... of opinion after opinion. If your taste has changed since the OP?

Congratulations.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod



My Father does art in Heaven...



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

Thank you.. this certainly went awry..

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Nothing has changed since my op.. but apparently you didn't pick up on what I actually wrote so let me reiterate from my OP:



This isn't to say that I think the art is bad, that is another question entirely.


And..



First there is the claim that taste isn't a part of someone's character. I say that this is clearly the case with the definition of character being:
"character: the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves : someone's personality".


I would think that since this definition deals with thoughts and feelings it would be implicit that we're dealing with taste as in opinion and preference. And if there were any doubt I clarified this in my second post.

a reply to: JimNasium

Maybe your Father can deliver me from this planet? Right about now?



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
First of all I would like to say you can't judge an artist his technique on a single painting. Take a look at Mondrian process to get to the geometric forms for example. But to judge at a painting out of the blue is just wrong on so many levels imo unless you want to buy it and hang it in your own room I guess.

To talk about the images you proposed


originally posted by: TheLaughingGod







Neither is highly entertaining or a technical masterpiece. Both are just repetitions of already formed techniques and there seems hardly any exploration in them.

Granted the later uses an old technique to represent reality, that is for a lot of people hard to grasp in their creations and that is why they awe at it. But composition is lame (just the typical 1/3rd 1/3rd 1/3rd) and nothing special, even the "story" is just another one. The first is what some perceive as simplistic, but simplistic isn't easy to get right. Even so the image is nothing out of the ordinary and doesn't feel exciting.










This one is funny, I never liked that kind of murals but composition is right and the technique was new when they first implemented it. I do how ever like the triangle that is formed. The lotr thing feels totally incoherent like someone knows how to stroke a pencil but has no clue of rhytms and balance. I can imagen people would enjoy it though but I would seen it sell at those market places, you know between the moving waterfall mirrors and the spraycanned planets and so.

So to answer your question which one is more sophisticated I would say the mural because you can see more then just the image presented at first glans, the second is just a pile of techniques of an artist that just begun exploring his art. I would suggest to him to make less images on a piece of art and explore the foundation that carries the art.


But evenso, whatever art you like, you are the one that has to look at it when hanging on your wall, so you should choose whatever you like.

Artcritics are not much different then politicians.



posted on Jul, 22 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod
I know about art. You're correct. Skill level in that LotR piece greatly exeeds the one before it. Japanese art is more simplistic than Renaissance art. It still has value ofc--great cultural value. but it is different than western art and I remember learning that Japanese art was way behind the art revolution of the west in terms of difficulty, but it embodies a different fascet of art because it is unique.

oh, and taste, by definition is inherent to character.




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join